Saturday, February 23, 2008

Tories Use Porn Star In Youth Advertising

Here's the Tory Ad:

And here's where they found their girl:

Wonder what she's looking at? It seems terrifyingly huge, and its frankly hard to imagine something like that belonging to a Conservative. (Except maybe to Stockwell Day who, I am told, is hung like a horse).

h/t to Jason, who never visits porn sites but apparently knows someone who does.

Update: Contrary to some of my commentors, there is no contradiction between being a girl in a stock photo and being a porn star. You might say our girl became a porn star the moment she appeared on the porn site. The definition of the term "porn star" is very loose. Girls have said to me, "Jesus, BCL, you're a regular porn star. I should be paying YOU."

Anyone who relies on Jason Cherniak's research and opinions does so at his own risk. He either talks before he does his fact checking or he's too dense to figure things out before blurting out his ignorance on his blog for the world to see.

I actually visited Jason's site - and lo and behold, his research was wrong... again, but to the putz's credit he's re-posted with a correction. In fact he corrected it yesterday. The photo was not from a porn site but was a stock photo.

That doesn't seem to have deterred BCL who prefers to broadcast the first error-laen post. Where Jason is just plain incompetent BCL is mendacious. At least BCL doesn't have his "comment moderator" gizmo on so he can arbitrarily censor comments that don't fit his little ideological/partisan script as he does routinely.

Are you going to post an update with the new information that the photo in question is stock photo, and that your headline and story are completely false?

Or are you going to do the Liberal thing and say you were just joking, like Cherniak tried to do?

See http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/cherniak-is-a-putz/

"Now if the new media lawyer had taken a minute to look it up, he would have found that it’s an easy to locate royalty-free stock photo from istockphoto.com - right there at the top of the Google search. What a bloody putz. Is this the kind of thing Liberals get excited about? What a scandal! - Tories use stock photos."

Meh, whatever. Maybe 500 people, nearly all Liberals, will see this, out of 33.5 million Canadians.

I keep telling you we can bake a bigger blogsphere "pie" if we are factually accurate.

Maybe you don't want a bigger "pie"? Maybe you and other bloggers deliberately shit the bed to scare off the "normals"? I'm genuinely perplexed as to why you appear to deliberately post factually inaccurate stuff on a daily basis.

Pay-per-post? Are you getting paid by payperpost.com? Careful, Google might remove you from their index.

What I find even more interesting is the fact that this ad is obviously aimed at young guys who aren't getting laid. If there is one thing the Conservative Party doesn't need more of, it's young guys who aren't getting laid.

Listen up, Conservatives...the brightest among you have impressive skills in very narrow fields of expertise, and most of the rest of you are either loud-mouthed blowhards or barely sentient. And you're all humourless. Any humour found among Conservatives is usually an emergent property.

I think you need to ask NAMBLA-watcher Richard Evans about that. He would know.

Seriously, you people need to be confronted with Holocaust victims and child abuse survivors. Maybe one them can finally slap the fucking smirks of your faces every time you think using those issues is simply hilarious.

Just to clarify: there is no contradiction between being the girl in a stock photo a being a porn star. You might say our girl became a porn star the moment she appeared on the porn site. The definition of the term "porn star" is very loose. Girls have said to me, "Jesus, BCL, you're a porn star. I should be paying YOU."

You mean being offended by the horror of genocide and child abuse is just a matter of political correctness for you?

Wow. Talk about being morally bankrupt.

In any case, it's not just the coarsening of political/public discourse that this kind of thing causes...it's also an issue of what you guys are doing to humour, satire and parody...all crimes against humanity, if you ask me.

I find it somewhat interesting that there is a surprised girl in the photo, suggesting that the implied convert to Conservianity was her ex - i.e., a male. It's also interesting that they say 'freak out your EX' and not 'freak out your spouse/girlfriend/etc'. Is that because they're implying that you join the CPC to further antagonize your ex (obviously a Liberal), or that she BECOMES your ex soon after you announce your conversion?

I also note the way they make a limp-wristed-effeminate(or feminate)-Liberal bash at the same time.

Dante, don't diss Gayle. She is a very clever lady and has apparently read some law stuff. She is way too smart for this blog and that she ever chooses to post here is like having an angel fallen to Earth.

You've failed to point out any sort of inconsistency on my part but, please, keep trying... While you're on the hunt, try to figure out how thai-guy can bitch about "anonymous" commenters when he, himself, is anonymous. When you get it solved, come back and tell the rest of the group.

Gayle, did you notice that Noam Chomsky disagreed with your take on the Levant/Steyn/HRC controversy. He believes in free speech and relies on U.S. jurisprudence. Surely you were lurking but not responding. Cat caught your tongue?

Gayle - I assumed that you were following the discussion on this blog about the Levant etc. controversy since you were, I was going to say, pontificating on it at some length. Anyway the blogger at Dime a Dozen solicited that oracle of the left, Noam Chomsky on the very issue and he wasn't impressed with the fact that Levant and Steyn were being dragged before the H. R. Commission.

Most left-wingers worship at his shrine, and to be fair to Chomsky, he does justify his views as he indeed did in this case. Anyway BCL worships at his shrine and hasn't commented. Don't tell me you haven't read Chomsky/

I am referring to the 1990 decision of Taylor that held that this section was constitutional:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Have you figured out how it is yet that thai-guy can bitch about anonymous commenters while being, himself, an anonymous commenter?

NAMBLA-Richard Evans has been asking this question for years now. It's been explained to him over and over again and he willfully refuses to accept the explanations he's given.

It's astonishing to think of the degree to which he's invested in presenting himself as completely unteachable.

Is it the chronic alcoholism? Is it an addiction that's even more dire? Is it brain damage? Is it child abuse? Is he being paid to harass? Is it his hatred of Eastern Canadians and various other others?

I personally believe Richard Evans should have been charged with online stalking and harassment long ago.

richard - again, I am not sure why you are so obsessed with TG, but I am not going to be drawn into defending of something that exists only in your mind.

If you cannot see the difference between someone who consistently posts as TG, and someone who may one moment post as "biff", and another as "troll on a roll", then there is nothing I can do to help you with that.

I wish I could be flattered by or even able enjoy the emotional frisson that comes from being the target of some wacko's obsession, but NAMBLA-Richard Evans is singularly promiscuous when it comes to his stalking. He's got a whole harem of people in his sights. If I were the jealous type, I'd be miffed.

richard - are you suggesting I accused YOU of being a sock puppet? Because I haven't.

I suspect you may be, but I do not accuse you because, as you say, I have no proof.

I do wonder if you think you have anything useful to add on the actual subject of this post? It seems to me you are devoted to the idea of bashing people without offering anything of substance. That says a lot about you. It is also the kind of behaviour one sees from sock puppets.